hyper-selectivity, racial mobility, and the remaking of race

Van C. Tran is assistant professor of sociology in the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. Jennifer Lee is professor of sociology in the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. Oshin Khach ikian is a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of California, Irvine. Jess Lee is a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of California, Irvine.

© 2018 Russell Sage Foundation. Tran, Van C., Jennifer Lee, Oshin Khachikian, and Jess Lee. 2018. “Hyper- selectivity, Racial Mobility, and the Remaking of Race.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 4(5): 188–209. DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2018.4.5.09. Direct correspondence to: Van C. Tran at vantran @columbia.edu, Department of Sociology, Columbia University, 607 Knox Hall, 606 W. 122nd St., New York, NY 10027.

Open Access Policy: RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences is an open access journal. This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported Li-cense.

Today’s immigrants have more diverse national origins than ever before in U.S. history. As a result, race and immigration have become in-extricably linked in the United States; one can no longer understand the complexities of race without considering immigration; correlatively, one cannot fully grasp the debates in immigra-tion without considering the role of race in U.S. society. Immigrants are diverse with respect not only to national origin, but also to selectiv-ity. At one end of the extreme are Asian Indians,

Hyper- selectivity, Racial Mobility, and the Remaking of Raceva n c. tr a n, JenniFer lee, oshin Kh achiKi a n, a nd Jess lee

Recent immigrants to the United States are diverse with regard to selectivity. Hyper- selectivity refers to a dual positive selectivity in which immigrants are more likely to have graduated from college than nonmi-grants in sending countries and the host population in the United States. This article addresses two ques-tions. First, how does hyper- selectivity affect second- generation educational outcomes? Second, how does second- generation mobility change the cognitive construction of racial categories? It shows how hyper- selectivity among Chinese immigrants results in positive second- generation educational outcomes and racial mobility for Asian Americans. It also raises the question of whether hyper- selectivity operates simi-larly for non- Asian groups. While there is a second- generation advantage among hyper- selected groups, hyper- selectivity has not changed the cognitive construction of race for blacks and Latinos as it has for Asians.

Keywords: hyper- selectivity, racial mobility, assimilation, second generation, racial categories, identity

Chinese, Nigerians, Cubans, and Armenians who are, on average, hyper- selected; not only are they more likely to have graduated from college than their nonmigrant counterparts, but also more likely to have a college degree relative to the U.S. mean. At the other end of the extreme are groups such as Mexicans who are hypo- selected, that is, less likely to have graduated from college than their nonmigrant counterparts and the U.S. mean.

At 28 percent of the foreign- born population,

mailto:vantran%40columbia.edu?subject=

mailto:vantran%40columbia.edu?subject=

r s f : t h e r u s s e l l s a g e f o u n d a t i o n j o u r n a l o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s

t h e r e m a K i n g o F r a c e 1 8 9

Mexicans are by far the largest immigrant group in the country—and one of the most so-cioeconomically disadvantaged. Their sheer size, coupled with their hypo- selectivity and disadvantaged socioeconomic and political sta-tus, have placed them at the center of research, debates, and policy prescriptions about immi-grant assimilation and comprehensive immi-gration reform. By comparison, relatively little attention has focused on the assimilation pat-terns of hyper- selected immigrant groups such as the Chinese and Asian Indians, even though China and India have passed Mexico as the top sending countries for immigrants to the United States since 2013.

In this article, we shift the focus to hyper- selected immigrant groups, and ask how they may be changing our cognitive construction of U.S. racial categories in the twenty- first century. First, how does hyper- selectivity affect the edu-cational outcomes of the second generation? Second, how have the achievements of hyper- selected immigrant groups and their second- generation children changed the cognitive con-struction of race? We tackle these questions by focusing on patterns of educational attainment among four hyper- selected groups—Chinese, Cubans, Nigerians, and Armenians who are ra-cialized as Asian, Hispanic, black, and white, respectively, in the U.S. context. We adopt a cog-nitive approach and propose that a change in the selectivity of an immigrant group can change the host society’s perceptions of the im-migrant group and may also affect the percep-tions of the racial group to which they are as-signed (Brubaker, Loveman, and Stamatov 2004; Wimmer 2008).

ImmIgr atIon, dIversIt y, and hyper- seleCtIvIt yThe influx of new immigrants to the United States became possible with the passage of the Hart- Celler Act in 1965, which eliminated quo-tas based on national origin and opened the door to newcomers from non- European coun-tries. This change brought such a dramatic shift in national origins of immigrants that to-day more than four in five hail from Latin America, Asia, Africa, or the Caribbean, and only one in seven from Europe or Canada (Lee and Bean 2010). The shift is the single most

distinctive feature of the country’s “new immi-gration.”

The change in the national origins of today’s newcomers has made an indelible imprint on the nation’s ethnoracial landscape, transform-ing it from a largely black- white society at the end of World War II to a kaleidoscope of eth-noracial groups (Alba and Nee 2003; Alba and Foner 2015; Foner and Fredrickson 2004; Waters, Ueda, and Marrow 2007). Since 1965, Latinos and Asians have more than quadrupled in size from 4 and 1 percent of the population to 18 and 6 percent, respectively. Latinos are now the largest minority group, and Asians the fastest growing group (Lee and Zhou 2015; Wong et al. 2011). Driving the growth of the Asian population is immigration; 65 percent of U.S. Asians are foreign born, a figure that increases to 80 percent among Asian adults. Among Latinos, 35 percent are foreign born. Although the total black population increased by only 1 percent (from 11 to 12 percent) since 1965, the foreign- born proportion grew to 10 percent of the total U.S. black population, up from 1 percent. The group that has decreased in size since 1965 is non- Hispanic whites. Al-though they remain by far the largest group in the country, accounting for some 65 percent of the population, their proportion has steadily declined since 1970, when the figure was 80 percent.

National origin and ethnoracial diversity are only two dimensions of contemporary immi-grant diversity. Today’s newcomers are also di-verse with respect to socioeconomic status, le-gal status, selectivity, and phenotype—all of which affect patterns of immigrant and second- generation integration. For example, Asian In-dians, Chinese, Koreans, Cubans, Nigerians, and Armenians are hyper- selected. Their posi-tive selectivity places them and their U.S.- born children at a more favorable starting point in their quest for socioeconomic attainment com-pared to other second- generation groups, and even compared to third- and higher- generation whites and blacks.

At the other extreme are Mexicans, who are hypo- selected. Their negative selectivity, cou-pled with the lack of legal status, places Mexi-can immigrants and their second- generation children at a disadvantaged starting point

19 0 i m m i g r a t i o n a n d c h a n g i n g i d e n t i t i e s


(Bean, Brown, and Bachmeier 2015). Although their second- generation children make enor-mous intergenerational strides, they remain below the U.S. mean with respect to educa-tional attainment (Lee and Zhou 2015; Telles and Ortiz 2008; Tran and Valdez 2017).

Hyper- and hypo- selectivity have cultural, institutional, and social psychological conse-quences for the educational attainment of the second generation (Lee and Zhou 2017, 2015). The hyper- selectivity of Chinese immigrants can enhance the educational outcomes of the second generation, even among those from working- class families in ways that defy the classic status attainment model. For example, Chinese immigrants who arrive with more ed-ucation and socioeconomic resources create ethnic capital in the form of supplemental ed-ucation programs, SAT prep courses, and tutor-ing services that are accessible to working- class coethnics (see also Kasinitz et al. 2008; Tran 2016). Moreover, the high achievers become the role models and mobility prototypes to which group members aspire, and the reference group against whom they measure their success. These coethnic resources and cross- class social ties give second- generation Chinese—includ-ing those from working- class backgrounds—a leg up over other groups.

In addition, hyper- selectivity has social psy-chological consequences, which affect in- group and out- group perceptions. For example, the hyper- selectivity of Chinese immigrants drives the perception that all Chinese are highly edu-cated, smart, hardworking, and deserving (Lee and Zhou 2015). And, critically, because of the racialization process that occurs in the United States, perceptions of Chinese extend to other Asian immigrant groups such as Vietnamese, even though the latter are not hyper- selected. These are the spillover effects of hyper- selectivity (Hsin 2016), which have resulted in the racial mobility of Asian Americans—the change in status or position of a racial group (Lee 2015). Here, we draw from Aliya Saper-stein’s racial mobility perspective, which ac-counts for the shift in an individual’s racial sta-tus based on changes to their social status (2015). We build on this perspective by noting that racial mobility can also occur at the group level as a result of changes in an ethnoracial

group’s immigrant selectivity or socioeconomic status. These changes can affect out- group per-ceptions, alter the group’s position in the U.S. hierarchy, and lead to racial mobility for both the ethnic group as well as their proximal host racial group.

This is precisely what happened in the case of U.S. Chinese and Asians. Less than a century ago, Chinese immigrants were described as il-literate, undesirable, and unassimilable for-eigners, full of “filth and disease,” and unfit for U.S. citizenship. In 1882 Senator John F. Miller, Republican of California, told the Senate on February 28, “It is a fact of history that wherever the Chinese have gone they have always taken their habits, methods, and civilization with them; and history fails to record a single ex-ample in which they have ever lost them. They remain Chinese always and everywhere; changeless, fixed and unalterable.” Senator Miller added, “If the Chinese could be lifted up to the level of the free American, to the adop-tion and enjoyment of American civilization, the case would be better; but this cannot be done,” he concluded. “Forty centuries of Chi-nese life has made the Chinaman what he is. An eternity of years cannot make him such a man as the Anglo- Saxon” (see Dunlap 2017, A2).

As “marginal members of the human race,” they were denied the right to naturalize, denied the right to intermarry, residentially segregated in crowded ethnic enclaves, and legally barred from entering the United States for ten years beginning in 1882 with the passage of the Chi-nese Exclusion Act (Okihiro 1994; Takaki 1979). Despite decades of institutional discrimina-tion, racial prejudice, and legal exclusion, Chi-nese have become one of the most highly edu-cated U.S. groups and are now hailed as a successful group to be emulated. The change in their immigrant selectivity—and more spe-cifically their hyper- selectivity—has led to the racial mobility of not only Chinese but also Asian Americans. Facilitating the group mobil-ity of Asian Americans is that the Chinese are the largest Asian ethnic group in the United States.

Although Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou illus-trate how hyper- selectivity affects second- generation Asian- origin immigrant groups (Chinese and Vietnamese), they do not con-


t h e r e m a K i n g o F r a c e 191

sider how it may operate for non- Asian immi-grant groups (2015). We expand the theoretical discussion of hyper- selectivity, and consider how it affects immigrant groups such as Cu-bans, Nigerians, and Armenians, and their U.S. proximal hosts—Latinos, blacks, and whites, respectively.1 We posit that though the hyper- selectivity of Cubans, Nigerians, and Arme-nians positively affects the socioeconomic outcomes of immigrants and their second- generation children, it does not change group- based perceptions of their proximal hosts as it does for Asians. In other words, although hyper- selectivity has changed the cognitive con-struction of Chinese, and has led to the racial mobility of Asian Americans, it has not done the same for other U.S. racial groups. Instead, Cubans and Nigerians are perceived as the ex-ceptions to Latinos and blacks—a perception that these ethnic groups actively strive to main-tain as they distance and identify themselves in opposition to their proximal hosts. By con-trast, Armenians—like European immigrant groups of the past—are becoming absorbed as whites.

four hyper- seleCted ImmIgr ant groups at a gl anCeWe provide brief immigration histories of four hyper- selected groups: Chinese, Cubans, Nige-rians, and Armenians that are racialized as Asian, Latino, black, and white, respectively, in the U.S. context.

ChineseSince 1965, Chinese immigrants have become the most populous Asian- origin group, from 235,000 in 1960 to more than four million in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). Although they constitute only 1.2 percent of the total U.S. pop-ulation, more than half have graduated from college, making them one of largest, most vis-ible, most educated, and upwardly mobile groups in the country. Their ascendance has

captured the attention of the media, pundits, and researchers who have provided a bevy of explanations for their educational attain-ment—the most popular of which was the es-sentialist cultural argument in which pundits point to unique Chinese and Asian cultural traits and values to explain their high achieve-ment (Chua and Rubenfeld 2014).

Social scientists, on the other hand, relied on the status attainment model to explain vari-ance in socioeconomic attainment, parental education being the strongest predictor of chil-dren’s educational attainment. This model ex-plained differences between and within native- born whites and blacks, but it failed to account for a vexing achievement paradox. Left unan-swered is how the children of Chinese immi-grants whose parents have less than a high school education, and work in ethnic restau-rants and factories, attain the same education (if not more) as their counterparts whose par-ents are college- educated professionals.

Immigration researchers tackle this paradox head on. Not only do they expose the fallacy of the culturally reductionist approach, they also explain how race and ethnicity serve as re-sources for immigrant and second- generation groups like the Chinese (Kasinitz et al. 2008; Hsin and Xie 2014; Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou and Kim 2006). They point to both structural advantages such as contexts of exit and recep-tion, ethnic capital, racial phenotype, favorable out- group perceptions, and cultural repertoires of achievement that affect second- generation success.

Lee and Zhou extend this literature by add-ing that hyper- selected immigrants import class- specific cultural institutions and practices from their countries of origin, and recreate those that have the most utility in their new host country (2015). Hence, what may be per-ceived and defined as the transmission of cul-tural traits and values is in fact class- specific in origin. In addition, they show that the chil-

1. Proximal host refers to “the racial category to which the immigrants would be assigned following immigration” (Mittelberg and Waters 1992, 412). Specifically, it refers to the native- born racial group in the host society that is closest to a given immigrant group. Although we use third- plus- generation whites and third- plus- generation blacks as the proximal hosts for Armenians and Nigerians, respectively, we depart from Philip Kasinitz and his colleagues and use third- plus- generation Latinos, rather than Puerto Ricans, as the proximal host for Cubans (2008). Finally, we add third- plus- generation Asians as the proximal host for Chinese.



dren of hyper- selected groups benefit from so-cial psychological processes. For example, be-cause Chinese immigrants are hyper- selected, teachers perceive all Chinese students as smart, hardworking, disciplined, and deserving. This can lead to stereotype promise—being viewed through the lens of a positive stereotype that can boost performance. Because of the racial-ization process in the United States, the hyper- selectivity of the Chinese extends to other East Asian groups, such as the Vietnamese. Hence, even mediocre second- generation Chinese and Vietnamese students gain advantages and sec-ond chances in the domain of education that are denied to other groups, including native- born whites. In turn, these cumulative advan-tages can result in a self- fulfilling prophecy of high achievement among Asian Americans.

Van Tran adds to this body of research by clarifying that not only does hyper- selectivity matter, but so does the socioeconomic di-versity of the coethnic community (2016). Al-though Chinese immigrants are hyper- selected, the range of human capital attributes within the ethnic group is unusually wide. Thus, Chinese social networks serve to link poor and working- class people to upper- middle- class professionals more often than in other ethnic groups, providing working- class and working- poor Chinese immigrant parents with access to cultural knowledge often re-served for upper- middle- class professionals. These direct and indirect connections through ethnic social networks facilitate the transfer of practical knowledge of the strategies neces-sary for educational mobility—from magnet public high schools entrance exams to pre- requisites for successful applications to the most selective universities. Furthermore, Tran finds that second- generation Chinese from working- class backgrounds strive to excel in school in order to obviate the prejudice expe-rienced by their immigrant parents, and to re-pay them for the hardship that they have had to endure in their new host society.

Thus, the superior academic credentials and socioeconomic characteristics of the second- generation Chinese result from the hyper- selectivity of their immigrant parents, its spill-over effects, and the socioeconomic diversity of Chinese Americans. These structural and

social psychological advantages create ethnic- specific cross- class opportunities beyond the parental home for both middle- and working- class coethnics as the second generation come of age.

CubansMore than 2.1 million Americans identify as Cuban and, like the Chinese, are hyper- selected (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). Among initial waves of the post- 1965 migrants from Cuba, 33 per-cent had earned a college degree, relative to only 1 percent of the Cuban national popula-tion (Pedraza- Bailey 1985). This early form of hyper- selectivity was driven by the Cuban revo-lution, which dislodged the dominant social classes from their homeland and resettled them in Miami (Pérez 1986), leading research-ers to call the first mass migration of Cuban elite to United States the Golden Exile (Portes 1969). As push factors in Cuba intensified and incentivized emigration, successive waves of coethnics—characterized by lower levels of ed-ucation and professional qualifications—ar-rived and populated the Cuban enclave in Mi-ami (Portes, Clark, and Bach 1977; Portes and Böröcz 1989).

Upon their arrival, the later waves were wel-comed by a resource- rich ethnic enclave that facilitated their socioeconomic incorporation. The top- heavy class structure of the initial wave of Cuban migrants concentrated social and economic capital that would later cascade throughout the enclave and provide less- skilled coethnics with employment in the enclave (Portes and Bach 1985; Portes and Puhrmann 2015). Although the ethnic capital among Cu-bans in Miami has aided the socioeconomic incorporation among the first generation, the effects—beyond educational aspirations—are less clear among the second generation.

Hyper- selectivity and socioeconomic diver-sity among first- generation Cubans has led to graduate degree aspirations among the second, even among the children of later wave Cuban migrants whose parents are far less likely to have graduated from college (Feliciano 2006; Rumbaut and Portes 2001). However, evidence of cross- class learning that would bolster second- generation educational attainment—which is present among the Chinese—has yet


t h e r e m a K i n g o F r a c e 19 3

to be empirically documented (Haller, Portes, and Lynch 2011).

Rather recent studies demonstrate that, un-like low- SES (socioeconomic status) second- generation Chinese who converge with high- SES coethnics in educational achievement, second- generation Cubans follow the pattern predicted by the status attainment model. Pa-rental class predicts children’s outcomes among second- generation Cubans, as reflected in the high college rates among the middle class at one extreme and high school dropout rates among the working class on the other (Portes and Puhrmann 2015). The favorable mode of incorporation and especially their context of re-ception has aided first- generation Cubans and has prevented downward assimilation among the second generation (Fernández- Kelly and Konczal 2005; Portes and Fernández- Kelly 2008; Portes and MacLeod 1996).

NigeriansNumbering some 367,000, Nigerians make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population, yet nearly two- thirds (62 percent) of Nigerian im-migrants are college educated—far exceeding the U.S. mean at 28 percent. Nigerian migration to the United States began en masse following the political upheaval in Nigeria in the 1960s, increasing rapidly through the 1990s (Ogbaa 2003; Imoagene 2012). In this decade, larger proportions of graduate degree holders and highly skilled professionals continued to flee the economic and political uncertainty in Ni-geria by resettling in the United States. This more recent, hyper- selected migration con-verged in three U.S. cities—New York, Houston, and Washington, D.C.—and contributed to the growing black middle class (Logan and Deane 2003).

Many of the most popular and active organi-zations among Nigerian Americans are not free-standing community associations created in the U.S. context, but rather American branches of hometown associations and community- based organizations with a long service history in Ni-geria. Like the members of the Golden Exile who recreated Cuban private schools in Miami to ensure that Cuban parents would retain sus-tained authority over American- born children, Nigerians have founded mutual- aid associa-

tions across the United States that organize chain migration, assist with job placement, and direct remittances to the homeland (Konadu- Agyemang, Takyi, and Arthur 2006; Arthur 2000).

The tight ethnic networks that emerge from mutual- aid associations have consequences for nonmigrants, as well as for both first- and second- generation Nigerians. For example, On-oso Imoagene reveals how these networks sus-tain cultural norms of advanced educational attainment among U.S. Nigerians such that they believe that it is “un- Nigerian not to go to col-lege” (2017). In fact, the educational expecta-tions among the second generation is a gradu-ate degree, similar to that of second- generation Chinese (Imoagene 2017; Lee and Zhou 2017, 2016, 2015). Although Nigerian immigrants and their children may reduce achievement to their ethnicity, Imoagene shows how the hyper- selectivity of the first generation affects the ed-ucational aspirations and attainment of the sec-ond generation (2017).

ArmeniansNumbering approximately 460,000, Armenian Americans make up less than 1 percent of the total U.S. population, yet 44 percent of them have a bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). The earliest migrants fled in re-sponse to political violence and genocide, set-tled on the Eastern seaboard in the late 1800s (Bakalian 1992), and later moved to California to work in agriculture (Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, and Der- Martirosian 1990). Following the change in U.S. immigration law in 1965, Arme-nian immigrants were hyper- selected and ra-cially classified as white, thanks to pre- 1965 Ar-menian immigrants who successfully petitioned federal immigration officials in the U.S. Supreme Court to be classified as white. Their petition for racial classification earned them eligibility for U.S. citizenship in the 1920s (Craver 2009).

Like American Jews, who are diverse in na-tional origin yet converge in the collective memory of the Holocaust, Armenian Ameri-cans emigrate to the United States from diverse sending countries, such as Syria, Iran, Arme-nia, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Russia, but or-ganize collectively for federal recognition of the



Armenian genocide (Waldinger and Bozorg-mehr 1996). Iranian immigrants have the high-est level of college completion among these groups, and Turkish immigrants, the highest level of self- employment (Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, and Der- Martirosian 1990).

Coordinated by a vocal and organized po-litical lobby, Armenian Americans benefit from a host of professional societies, youth enrich-ment organizations, and nonprofit hometown associations that provide social services for both the local community as well as humanitar-ian relief in the Republic of Armenia (Waldinger 2015; Khachikian 2016). To our knowledge, no research has been published on the educational attainment of second- generation Armenians, making our analysis one of the first mobility snapshots for this immigrant group. Given the hyper- selectivity of the first generation, their favorable context of reception, and their white racial status in the United States, it is likely that the second generation will reproduce their par-ents’ socioeconomic advantage. The ethnic capital that highly skilled professional immi-grants create and sustain in a community with a high level of ethnic concentration like Los Angeles places second- generation Armenians at a favorable starting point in their quest for attainment (Der- Martirosian 2008; Phinney, Ong, and Madden 2000; Phinney, Baumann, and Blanton 2001).

pat terns of ImmIgr ant and seCond - gener atIon eduCatIonal at taInmentWe provide details of our data, methods, and analyses of patterns of immigrant and second- generation educational attainment.

Data and MethodsTo examine the patterns of second- generation educational attainment among Chinese, Cu-bans, Nigerians, and Armenians, we used pooled data from the Annual Social and Eco-nomic Supplement of the Community Popula-tion Survey (CPS ASEC) from 2008, 2010, and 2012 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). The CPS ASEC is the only data source that provides na-tionally representative samples of second- generation adults in the United States. The CPS ASEC is administered by the Census Bureau

through both in- person and telephone inter-views every month to monitor basic trends in the population. It uses a probability sample of about sixty thousand occupied households from all fifty states and the District of Colum-bia. The survey design features a 4–8- 4 sam-pling scheme under which households are included in the survey for the first four con-secutive months and excluded for the next eight, before returning again for the last four. Given this sampling design, the pooling of data from the 2008, 2010, and 2012 samples ensures the presence of non- overlapping individuals in the pooled dataset, because each of these sur-veys was collected two years apart. The pooled sample also ensures an adequate sample size for smaller groups such as Nigerians and Ar-menians.

The main outcome of interest is educational attainment by ethnoracial origin and immi-grant generation. Our focus is on the second generation in each of the four ethnic groups. We compared their outcomes with those of the immigrant first generation from the same eth-nic groups, with the proximal host from the same racial groups, and with their second- generation nonethnics from the same racial group. The four proximal host racial groups in-clude third- plus- generation individuals from the same race (that is, native- born non- Hispanic whites, non- Hispanic blacks, non- Hispanic Asians and Hispanics). These three sets of com-parisons were selected to reveal the complex linkages between hyper- selectivity and inter-generational mobility that underlie the cogni-tive construction of racial groups in the U.S. context.

The analysis is restricted to respondents age twenty- five or older, given our main outcome of interest in educational achievement. This age range also allowed us to effectively compare the first and second generation in the United States with nonmigrants in their home coun-tries for whom data on educational attainment are available only for those older than twenty- five. Our key independent variables are eth-noracial origin and immigrant generation, op-erationalized based on the birthplace of the respondent and those of their parents. Those with one foreign- born parent and one native- born parent we classified based on the ethnic-



ity of the foreign- born parent to ensure the larg-est samples of the second generation.

The analyses proceeded in two stages. First, bivariate analyses provided statistical profiles for each ethnic group by ethnoracial origin. Second, multivariate logistic regression analy-ses examined the socioeconomic attainment of Latino ethnic groups, relative to third- plus- generation proximal hosts or to second- generation nonethnic individuals from the same racial group. Because the dependent vari-able is dichotomous, we used logistic regres-sions with robust standard errors and report the odds ratios. The control variables include age, the quadratic term of age, region of the country and survey year. Because CPS ASEC 2008–2012 pools data across three survey years, we controlled for changes over time. Region is

a variable with four census categories: North-east, Midwest, West, and South. Our analyses adjusted for the stratified survey design using appropriate final weights provided by CPS ASEC. We also present some of our findings using predicted probabilities based on the mul-tivariate analyses in which values for control variables are held constant at the mean level.

Descriptive AnalysesTable 1 provides an overview of our CPS ASEC pooled sample by ethnoracial origin and im-migrant generation, along with the proportion with a bachelor’s degree or more. Chinese were the largest among the four groups, having the highest number of both immigrant and second- generation respondents, followed by Cubans. In contrast, the samples of Armenians and Ni-

Table 1. Educational Attainment by Ethnoracial Origin and Immigrant Generation

Ethnic Group

% College

Graduate

% Total

SampleN

Sample Size

First generationChinese 52.7 1.0 3,196Cuban 23.5 0.6 1,868Armenian 34.5 0.0 120Nigerian 63.8 0.1 320

Second generationChinese 61.2 0.2 611Cuban 40.6 0.1 343Armenian 57.6 0.0 31Nigerian 73.5 0.0 44

Second generationNon-Chinese Asian 54.7 0.6 1,902Non-Cuban Hispanic 19.5 2.3 7,003Non-Armenian white 36.6 3.0 9,426Non-Nigerian black 37.7 0.2 587

Third-plus generationNon-Hispanic Asian 52.0 0.8 2,338Hispanic-Latino 16.9 4.8 14,730Non-Hispanic white 32.9 74.1 229,480Non-Hispanic black 18.9 12.2 37,661

Total 31.3 100.0 309,660

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012).Note: Combined sample is limited to population age twenty-five and older.

19 6 I m m I g r a t I o n a n d C h a n g I n g I d e n t I t I e s


gerianswererathersmall,reflectingboththeirrelativegroupsizeandrecencyofimmigration.Wealsospecifiedthesecond-generationnon-ethnicsfromthesameracialgroupandtheirthird- and higher-generation proximal hostgroups.Thesetwosetsofcomparisonsprovidebenchmarksforsecond-generationprogressagainsttheU.S.mainstreamandhowwellthefourethnicgroupsperformedrelativetoothersecond-generationindividualsofthesamera-cial but not the same ethnic background.ThesetwobenchmarkscapturetheincreasingdiversityoftheU.S.mainstreamintowhichthesecondgenerationassimilatebecauserecentresearchhasshownhowthechoiceofrefer-encegroupstocomparesecond-generationat-tainment affects the conclusion of second-generationprogress,mobility,stagnation,ordecline(JiménezandHorowitz2013;Kasinitzetal.2008;Portes,AparicioGomez,andHaller2016;TranandValdez2017).

Examiningeducationalattainmentamongthefourethnicgroupsrevealedtwodistinctivecharacteristics—hyper-selectivityandintergen-erationalmobility.Figure1presentsdescriptiveresultsontheproportionwithabachelor’sde-

greeorhigherwithineachethnicgroupintheUnitedStates,contrastingtheseproportionswiththeeducationalattainmentamongnon-migrantsinthesendingcountries.Amongthepopulation age twenty-five and older, first-generationimmigrantsreportedsignificantlyhigherpercentagesofhavingabachelor’sde-greeorhigherthantheirnonmigrantcounter-parts in respective home countries. ThisachievementgapismoststrikingbetweenChi-nesenonmigrantsandChineseimmigrantsintheUnitedStates,butalsosubstantialfortheotherthreegroups.Only3.6percentofnonmi-grantChinesereportedhavingacollegeeduca-tion,but52.7percentofimmigrantChineseheldabachelor’sdegree.Thishyper-selectivityratioof17:1betweenimmigrantandnonmi-grantmeansthatChineseimmigrantsweredis-proportionatelywelleducatedrelativetonon-migrants. This ratio is about 8:1 for AsianIndians.ThisgapisalsoquitestarkamongNi-gerians. ImmigrantNigerians (63.8percent)weresixtimesmorelikelythantheirnonmi-grantcounterpartstoreporthavingabache-lor’sdegreeormore(11.5percent).Theirhyper-selectivity ratio is about 6:1. Similarly, 23.5

Figure 1. Educational Attainment by Ethnoracial Origin and Immigrant Generation

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012), UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2012, and Education Policy and Data Center 2013.Notes: Combined sample is limited to population age twenty-five and older. Nonmigrant data for Chi-nese, Cubans, and Armenians are extracted from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics. Nonmigrant data for Nigerians are extracted from Education Policy and Data Center.

52.7

23.5

34.5

63.861.2

40.6

57.6

73.5

3.6

14.2

24.4

11.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Chinese Cuban Armenian Nigerian

Perc

ent w

ith B

ache

lor's

Deg

ree

or M

ore

First generation Second generation Nonmigrant



percent of immigrant Cubans reported having a college degree relative to only 14.2 percent of nonmigrant Cubans, a gap of 9 percent. Among Armenians, the corresponding gap is about 10 percent.

Between the first and second generation, in-tergenerational mobility is clear. A significantly higher proportion of the second generation from four ethnic groups reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher than their immi-grant first generation. Among Chinese, this number increased from 52.7 percent to 61.2 per-cent. Among Cubans, 23.5 percent among first- generation immigrants and 40.6 among the second generation reported having a college

education. Among Armenians, the increase was from 34.5 percent to 57.6 percent. Among Ni-gerians, patterns of mobility were similarly ro-bust, up approximately 10 percentage points to 73.5 percent in the second generation. The over-all pattern is clear: the first generation was sig-nificantly more selective than the nonmigrants in the country of origin, and the second gen-eration reported even higher education than the first.

Figure 2 presents descriptive results on the proportion with a bachelor’s degree or higher for the second generation from the same four groups, contrasting these proportions with second- generation nonethnic counterparts

Figure 2. Educational Attainment by Ethnoracial Origin and Proximate Host

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012).Note: Combined sample is limited to population age twenty-five and older.

73.5

37.7

18.9

57.6

36.6

32.9

40.6

19.6

16.9

61.2

52.0

54.7

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Nigerian, 2nd

Non-Nigerian black, 2nd

Non-Hispanic black, 3rd+

Armenian, 2nd

Non-Armenian white, 2nd

Non-Hispanic white, 3rd+

Cuban, 2nd

Non-Cuban Hispanic, 2nd

Hispanic, 3rd+

Chinese, 2nd

Non-Chinese Asian, 2nd

Non-Hispanic Asian, 3rd+

Percent with Bachelor's Degree or More



from the same race and the third- plus- generation native proximal host groups. Spe-cifically, the host groups for Chinese, Cubans, Armenians, and Nigerians are non- Hispanic Asians, Hispanics, non- Hispanic whites, and non- Hispanic blacks. The results from figure 2 show that the second generation from all four ethnic groups outperformed both their native- born proximal hosts and their second- generation nonethnic counterparts from the same racial group. The higher achievement among the second generation is a key conse-quence of hyper- selectivity among the first gen-eration.

The gap between the ethnic group and prox-imal host group is smallest among Chinese and largest among Nigerians. By illustration, second- generation Chinese achievement was similar to the average achievement or the norm for their proximal host group. By contrast, second- generation Nigerian achievement was an outlier for their proximal host. Among second- generation Asians, the gap between Chinese and non- Chinese is small but for the other groups quite significant. For example, second- generation Cubans were twice as likely to finish college than both Puerto Ricans and other second- generation Hispanics (that is, second- generation non- Cuban Hispanics). Second- generation Nigerians were five times as likely as African Americans and twice as likely as other second- generation blacks (that is, second- generation non- Nigerian blacks) to have a college degree.

Multivariate AnalysesFurther results from our multivariate analyses confirm the patterns documented in our de-scriptive analyses. Table 2 presents multivariate results from logistic regressions predicting col-lege attainment for the four second- generation groups in comparison with the three native proximal host groups. Model 1 shows that blacks and Puerto Ricans were about half as likely as whites to have a bachelor’s degree and that the second generation from all four ethnic groups were significantly more likely have grad-uated from college than the first generation. The largest differences are among Nigerians, who were 5.7 times more likely than whites to

have a college degree, and among Chinese, who were 3.2 times more likely. Controlling for age, gender, region, and survey year, these key dif-ferences persist and remain statistically signif-icant in model 2. The inclusion of survey year as a control variable does not change our re-sults in any substantive way, although the sur-vey year variables are statistically significant. Figure 3 graphs the predicted probabilities from multivariate analyses for the key ethnic groups and reveal a clear second- generation advantage over the three proximal host groups.

Table 3 focuses on interethnic and intergen-erational comparisons within the same racial group. The independent variable of interest is the ethnic group by immigrant generation, with second- generation non- coethnic individu-als from the same racial group (that is, non- Chinese Asians, non- Cuban Hispanics, and so on) as the reference group. In other words, we examine how well second- generation Chi-nese fared relative to second- generation non- Chinese Asians. If first- generation hyper- selectivity matters, as we posit, we expect the second generation from such groups to fare better than their counterparts from the other ethnic groups within the same U.S. racial group. We realize that this approach is imper-fect, in that non- Chinese Asians still lump to-gether diverse Asian ethnic groups, including high- achieving ones such as Asian Indians and Koreans as well as low- achieving ones such as Cambodians and Laotians.

Compared with other second- generation Asians, the second- generation Chinese re-ported significantly higher odds of having a bachelor’s degree or more. They were also sig-nificantly more likely than first- generation Chi-nese to achieve more education. Among His-panics, both first- and second- generation Cubans were significantly more likely to com-plete a college education or more than other second- generation Hispanics. Nigerians were in fact the most highly educated group. First- generation Nigerians were 2.5 times more likely and second- generation Nigerians 4.2 times more likely to have a bachelor’s degree or higher than other second- generation blacks. Finally, first- generation Armenians were the only group that reported lower odds of having



Table 2. Logistic Regression for Second-Generation Educational Attainment, College Graduates

Variables Model 1 Model 2

Ethnoracial origin and immigrant generation Non-Hispanic black, third-plus generation 0.475*** 0.465***

(0.007) (0.007)Hispanic/Latino, third-plus generation 0.419*** 0.355***

(0.011) (0.009)Non-Hispanic Asian, third-plus generation 2.216*** 1.860***

(0.124) (0.105)Chinese, second generation 3.235*** 2.654***

(0.296) (0.235)Cuban, second generation 1.403** 1.197

(0.166) (0.143)Armenian, second generation 2.787* 3.111**

(1.195) (1.247)Nigerian, second generation 5.692*** 4.752***

(2.360) (1.988)

Control variables Age 1.018***

(0.002)Age-square 1.000***

(0.000)Male 1.008

(0.010)Midwest 0.720***

(0.011)South 0.802***

(0.011)West 1.048**

(0.016)CPS 2010 vs. CPS 2008 1.033**

(0.012)CPS 2012 vs. CPS 2008 1.106***

(0.013)

Constant 0.488*** 0.520***(0.003) (0.028)

N 285,238 285,238

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012).Note: Odds ratios reported. Robust standard errors in parentheses. The reference group for ethnoracial origin is non-Hispanic white, third-plus generation. The reference category for region is northeast. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

2 0 0 i m m i g r a t i o n a n d c h a n g i n g i d e n t i t i e s


a bachelor’s degree or more than other second- generation whites, whereas second- generation Armenians were 2.5 times more likely to have completed a college education.

Figure 4 graphs the race- specific predicted probabilities from the multivariate analyses in table 3, holding all the control variables at their mean value. Except for Asians, the other three racial groups show three clear patterns. First, there is upward mobility in educational attain-ment when comparing first- and second- generation respondents within each ethnic group. Second, second- generation respondents from the hyper- selected groups also reported significantly higher achievements than their second- generation nonethnic counterparts from the same racial group. Third, among Asian re-spondents, second- generation Chinese respon-dents slightly outperformed first- generation Chinese and other second- generation Asians.

hyper- seleCtIvIt y and the CognItIve ConstruCtIon of r aCeOur analyses point to the positive association between hyper- selectivity and second- generation educational attainment. The hyper- selectivity of first- generation Chinese, Cubans, Nigerians, and Armenians has led to even higher college completion rates among the sec-ond.

Although hyper- selectivity positively affects college graduation rates for the second genera-tion, what remains to be seen is whether this advantage will last beyond the second genera-tion. Drawing from research on immigration and race- ethnicity, we considered how hyper- selectivity might affect third- and later- generation Chinese, Cubans, Nigerians, and Armenians, and theorize what this suggests about the effects of hyper- selectivity on the cog-nitive construction of race and patterns of eth-

Figure 3. Predicted Probabilities of Educational Attainment by Ethnoracial Origin

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012).Note: Combined sample is limited to population age twenty-five and older. The four native (third-and-higher-generation) groups are non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian. The four second-generation groups are Chinese, Cuban, Armenian, and Nigerian. Predicted probabilities are based on multivariate models, which also controlled for gender, age, quadratic tem of age, region, and survey year, holding these control variables at mean value.

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

Pred

icte

d Pr

obab

iliti

es

Ethnoracial Origin

Having a College Degree

White Black Hispanic Asian Chinese Cuban Armenian Nigerian



noracial identification. We contend that the ef-fects of hyper- selectivity differ for groups depending on how they are racialized in the U.S. context, as well as the status of the proxi-mal host group in relation to the hyper- selected immigrant group.

Members of the second- generation may identify by national origin or ethnicity, and en-ter U.S. institutions (such as schools) with en-trenched racial categories and highly stratified racial hierarchies. These, in turn, affect how

teachers, guidance counselors, and peers per-ceive, treat, and identify students of diverse im-migrant and ethnoracial backgrounds (Calarco 2014; Drake 2017; Ferguson 2003; Lee and Zhou 2015; Lewis- McCoy 2014; Valenzuela 1999). For example, although second- generation Nigerian students may strongly identify with their eth-nicity and immigrant origin, school officials may recognize neither; rather, they may identify the students as black and treat them accord-ingly.

Table 3. Race-Specific Logistic Regression for Second-Generation Educational Attainment

VariablesChinese Model 1

Cuban Model 2

Armenian Model 3

Nigerian Model 4

Immigrant generation First generation 1.215* 1.412*** 0.592* 2.489***

(0.096) (0.112) (0.129) (0.436)Second generation 1.441*** 2.668*** 2.462* 4.210***

(0.158) (0.335) (1.064) (1.773)

Control variables Age 1.012 1.076*** 1.064*** 1.094*

(0.013) (0.013) (0.011) (0.039)Age-square 1.000*** 0.999*** 0.999*** 0.999**

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)Male 1.141* 0.738*** 1.258*** 1.017

(0.071) (0.042) (0.066) (0.158)Midwest 1.978*** 0.934 0.839* 1.286

(0.236) (0.115) (0.062) (0.350)South 1.557*** 0.843* 1.141 1.157

(0.153) (0.072) (0.084) (0.206)West 1.356*** 0.768** 1.049 0.921

(0.103) (0.066) (0.072) (0.248)CPS 2010 vs. CPS 2008 1.034 1.036 1.038 0.822

(0.082) (0.071) (0.065) (0.162)CPS 2012 vs. CPS 2008 0.996 1.019 1.209** 1.206

(0.076) (0.071) (0.078) (0.228)

Constant 1.152 0.080*** 0.248*** 0.092**(0.361) (0.024) (0.069) (0.075)

N 5,709 9,214 9,577 951

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). Note: Odds ratios reported. Robust standard errors in parentheses. The reference group for each race-specific regression is second-generation individuals in same racial group, excluding the ethnic group. For Chinese, it is second-generation non-Chinese Asian. For Cubans, it is second-generation non-Cuban Hispanic. For Armenians, it is second-generation non-Armenian white. For Nigerians, it is second-generation non-Nigerian black. The reference category for region is northeast. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001



Research shows that internal ethnic identi-fication among the second generation can be at odds with external racial ascription, and studies of the children of black immigrants un-derscore the relevant difference between the two (Imoagene 2017; Tran 2015; Waters 1999). In her study of second- generation Nigerians, Imoagene shows that they succeeded in part by actively choosing their ethnicity while nego-tiating their race (2017). Despite their extraor-dinary academic achievement, however, she also finds that because of their racial status as black, they faced biases and barriers that im-peded their full integration into U.S. institu-tions (see also Owens and Lynch 2012; Owens and Massey 2011; Patacchini and Zenou 2016). Like Van Tran and Mary Waters, in their stud-ies of second- generation West Indians, Imo-agene cautions that the class and ethnic advan-

tages of the second- generation Nigerians may not extend to the third and later generations because of their racial status and the cognitive construction of blackness in U.S. society (Imo-agene 2017; Tran 2015; Waters 1999).

Here, we note that the size of the hyper- selected immigrant group in relation to their proximal host matters for changing the cogni-tive construction of race, and has implications for ethnoracial identification among descen-dants of immigrants. For example, in spite of the hyper- selectivity of Nigerian immigrants and the extraordinarily high level of education attained by the second generation, Nigerians make up only 1 percent of the total U.S. black population (see table 4). This fraction is not enough to change the cognitive construction of blackness, which was born out of the legacy of slavery, entrenched by Jim Crow laws, and

Figure 4. Race-Specific Predicted Probabilities of Educational Attainment by Generation

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012).Note: Combined sample is limited to population age twenty-five and older. Other Asian includes non-Chinese Asians; Other Hispanic includes non-Cuban Hispanics; Other White includes non-Armenian whites; Other Nigerian includes non-Nigerian blacks. Predicted probabilities are based on multivariate models, which also controlled for gender, age, quadratic term of age, region, and survey year, holding these control variables at mean value.

1

.8

.6

.4

.2Pred

icte

d Pr

obab

iliti

es

Non-Hispanic White

Non-Hispanic Asian Hispanic/Latino

Chinese (2nd gen)

Other Asian (2nd gen)

Chinese (1st gen)

.0

1

.8

.6

.4

.2Pred

icte

d Pr

obab

iliti

es

Non-Hispanic Black

Cuban(2nd gen)

Other Hispanic (2nd gen)

Cuban (1st gen)

.0

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

Pred

icte

d Pr

obab

iliti

es

Nigerian(2nd gen)

Other Black(2nd gen)

Nigerian(1st gen)

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

Pred

icte

d Pr

obab

iliti

es

Armenian(2nd gen)

Other white (2nd gen)

Armenian(1st gen)



embedded through the de jure and now de facto practice of the one- drop rule of hypo- descent. Because of the distance between Ni-gerian and black American identity, Nigerians in the United States sometimes work to distin-guish themselves from black Americans, and strategically emphasize their ethnic and immi-grant identities over their racial identities (see Imoagene 2017).

Hyper- selectivity operates differently for Chinese immigrants than it does for Nigerians. Chinese immigrants are the largest Asian im-migrant group, and Chinese Americans are the largest Asian ethnic group, which affects the cognitive construction of both the ethnic cat-egory Chinese as well as the racial category Asian. Foreign- born Chinese make up 20 per-

cent of all foreign- born Asians, and first- and second- generation Chinese account for 18 per-cent of the total Asian American population. Because Chinese are a larger share of the U.S. Asian population than Nigerians are of the U.S. black population, the former will more strongly affect the cognitive construction of race than the latter. In short, the hyper- selectivity of Chi-nese immigrants and the high educational at-tainment among the second generation affect Americans’ perceptions of not only U.S. Chi-nese but also Asian Americans. Furthermore, the perceived similar status of Chinese and Asian identity in the United States explains why Chinese do not strongly reject the racial label of Asian American (as Nigerians reject the black American one), but instead use ethnic and ra-

Table 4. Relative Distribution by Ethnoracial Origin and Immigrant Status by Racial Groups

% Ethnic

Group% Foreign

Born% Racial Group N

Asian respondents Chinese, first generation 83.4 19.6 15.2 3,196Chinese, second generation 16.6 2.9 611Other Asian, first generation 80.4 62.5 13,132Other Asian, second-plus generation 19.4 4,076Total 100 100 100 21,015

Hispanic respondents Cuban, first generation 83.3 5.2 3.2 1,868Cuban, second generation 16.7 0.6 343Other Hispanic, first generation 94.8 58.6 33,946Other Hispanic, second-plus generation 37.5 21,733Total 100 100 100 57,890

White respondents Armenian, first generation 88.2 0.9 0.05 120Armenian, second generation 11.8 0.01 31Other white, first generation 99.1 5.2 13,078Other white, second-plus generation 94.7 238,894Total 100 100 100 252,123

Black respondents Nigerian, first generation 79.6 6.5 0.7 320Nigerian, second generation 20.4 0.1 44Other black, first generation 93.5 5 4,584Other black, second-plus generation 95 38,239

Total 100 100 100 43,187

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the 2008–2012 CPS ASEC (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). Note: Samples are limited to population age twenty-five and older.



cial identifiers interchangeably (Lee and Zhou 2015).

Today, Asian Americans are the most highly educated racial group in the country and aca-demic achievement has become racialized as the province of Asians (Drake 2017; Jiménez and Horowitz 2013; Lee and Zhou 2017, 2015). This racialization of achievement signals that the effects of hyper- selectivity may extend well be-yond the second generation for Chinese and other Asian ethnic groups. This possibility is even more likely considering that Chinese and Indian immigration to the United States—two extremely hyper- selected immigrant streams—drives Asian immigrant replenishment. Finally, that 59 percent of the Asian American popula-tion are foreign born (73 percent of Asian adults) means that immigrant hyper- selectivity will influence the cognitive construction of race for Asian Americans. We contend that it has already led to the racial mobility of Asian Amer-icans.

We hypothesize that the case of Cubans will more closely mirror that of Nigerians than Chi-nese with respect to both the cognitive con-struction of race and patterns of identification. Cuban immigrants make up only 5 percent of all Latino immigrants, and 97 percent of the U.S. Latino population is non- Cuban. Although they may be racialized as Latino in the U.S. con-text, first- and second- generation Cubans per-ceive themselves as distinct from other Latinos and Hispanics, and distance themselves from panethnic labels (Owens and Massey 2011; Portes and Fernández- Kelly 2008; Portes and MacLeod 1996; Tran and Valdez 2017). Although the second generation may benefit from this distinction and from immigrant optimism, this advantage does not extend to the third and later generations (Fernández- Kelly and Konczal 2005).

Given the racialization of Cubans as Latino coupled with the fact that Mexicans (a hypo- selected group)—rather than Cubans—are the largest immigrant group in the country, we posit that the hyper- selectivity of Cubans will not change the cognitive construction of the racial category Latino. Even in Miami, where the majority of Latinos are of Cuban descent, the cognitive construction of Latino has not changed because Cubans are more likely to

identify ethnically rather than as Latino, have historically identified racially as white, and continue to reject the panethnic Latino label (Oboler 1995; Torres 1999). In other words, not only are Cubans more likely to identify with their ethnonym, but also, given their large group size in Miami, non- Cubans in Florida recognize them as Cubans rather than as La-tino, thereby leaving the status of the Latino racial category intact (Mora 2014). In addition, in the popular imagination of most Americans, Latino is synonymous with Mexican, and in-vokes stereotypes of illegality and disadvantage (Donato and Massey 2016). Consequently, Cu-ban immigrants will continue to be perceived, perceive themselves, and identify themselves as the exceptions to and distinct from Latino immigrants, and Cuban Americans, the excep-tions to and distinct from U.S. Latinos. We hy-pothesize that Cuban Americans will be hailed as exemplars of Latino exceptionalism, rather than alter the cognitive construction of Latino.

The hyper- selectivity of Armenian immi-grants and the educational attainment of the second generation will be least consequential in changing the cognitive construction of white. Armenians are not only a small propor-tion—1 percent—of white immigrants, but also a tiny proportion—0.1 percent—of the total U.S. white population. Their negligible size in rela-tion to both white immigrants and U.S. whites portends that they will be absorbed into the white racial category, which has historically stretched to include new European immigrant groups, and adopt a white racial identity. More-over, other patterns point to the likelihood of further absorption: whiteness is expanding even further to include Asian- white and Latino- white multiracials, even as it continues to ex-clude black- white multiracials into the fold (Alba 2016; Lee and Bean 2010).

In table 5, we summarize the two factors at the core of our argument on racial mobility: an ethnic group educational attainment and its group size, both relative to its proximal host. We also compare the four ethnic groups with their proximal host racial groups. As we show, individuals of Chinese descent not only report educational attainment high in respect to their proximal host group, but also make up more than 16 percent (one- sixth) of the total popula-



tion of their racial group (Asians). As a result, Chinese ethnic group achievement is perceived as the norm for the proximal host racial group. For those of Nigerian descent, however, their educational achievement far exceeds the level for their proximal host (black). Moreover, Ni-gerians make up only a small share of the total black population in the United States, which renders the Nigerian achievement pattern the exception, not the norm, for the U.S. black pop-ulation. A similar pattern is found among Cu-bans and their proximal host, Latinos. These differences in perceptions of each ethnic group’s relative achievement compared with that of the proximal host, in turn, contribute to the shifting cognitive perceptions of Asian as a racial category while leaving black and La-tino categories relatively stable, despite the high attainment of Nigerians and Cubans. Fi-nally, despite the high achievement of individ-uals of Armenian descent, their small size rela-tive to the U.S. white population does not change the perception and status of whiteness.

dIsCussIon and ConClusIonsOur comparative framework points to certain findings that dispel the popular myth of Asian Americans as the model for high academic achievement. The media and pundits racialize achievement as the province of Asians, yet Ni-gerians are the most highly educated. Nearly two- thirds (63 percent) of Nigerian immigrants have a bachelor’s degree, versus just over half (53 percent) of foreign- born Chinese. Moreover, the most highly educated second- generation group is also Nigerian, 74 percent of whom have a bachelor’s degree or higher, followed by

second- generation Chinese at 61 percent. Al-though college graduation rates for second- generation Cubans and Armenians are evenly matched at 45 percent, the former have made the most intergenerational mobility; second- generation Cubans nearly double the college graduation rates of the first generation (41 per-cent to 24 percent). Critically, based on pre-dicted probabilities, each group is more likely to have graduated from college than their U.S. proximal hosts.

To be sure, we have not considered other possible hyper- selected immigrant groups, such as Asian Indians, in this analysis. How-ever, not all ethnic groups with high levels of human capital are hyper- selected. For example, British and Canadian immigrants, who are more highly educated than other immigrant groups, are not necessarily hyper- selected be-cause they are not disproportionately more ed-ucated than their nonmigrant counterparts.

Our decision to focus here on Chinese, Cu-bans, Nigerians, and Armenians is analytical because we aim to highlight how hyper- selectivity facilitates racial mobility for ethnic groups that are differentially racialized in the U.S. context. Although Nigerians immigrants are the most highly educated, the Chinese are the most hyper- selected, revealing that educa-tional outcomes alone do not change the cog-nitive construction of U.S. racial categories. By juxtaposing the largest and most hyper- selected Asian ethnic group—Chinese—with relatively smaller and more recently arrived groups such as Nigerians and Armenians, we underscore the significance of group size and how it affects perceptions of an ethnoracial group’s relative

Table 5. How Proximal Host, Educational Achievement, and Group Size Shape Racial Mobility

Ethnic Group

Proximal Host Group

Ethnic Group’s Educational Attainment Relative to

Proximal Host

Ethnic Group’s Population

Size as a Share of the Overall Racial Group

Perception of Ethnic Group’s Achievement

Relative to Proximal Host

Racial Mobility

Chinese Asian Same Large Norm YesCuban Latino Higher Small Exception NoArmenian White Same Small Norm NoNigerian Black Higher Small Exception No

Source: Authors’ compilation.



standing and status. Consequently, these per-ceptions of racial mobility and immobility af-fect the cognitive construction and changing meaning of racial categories in the U.S. context, and affect patterns of ethnic and racial identi-fication among hyper- selected immigrant groups and their second- generation children.

The choice of four ethnic groups from dif-ferent U.S. racial categories also shows how as-similation of contemporary immigrant groups into American society is intricately linked to the outcomes and mobility of the proximal host groups. Because Chinese as an ethnic group do not have a proximal host, the racial mobility of Chinese and Asian immigrants and their chil-dren has fundamentally shifted the public per-ception of this group. In this sense, Chinese and Asians are not burdened by negative ste-reotypes often associated with native minority groups. At the same time, however, Chinese and Asians are often perceived as the “perpet-ual foreigners” because they are not immedi-ately associated with or recognizable as a native ethnoracial group (Cheryan and Monin 2005; Tuan 1998). The public perception toward and perceived status of ethnoracial groups in turn profoundly affect how individuals from these ethnic groups might choose to identify them-selves—as Chinese, Asian, Chinese American, or Asian American.

This essay broadens the concept of hyper- selectivity by applying it to four ethnic groups of diverse origins. By linking the achievements of immigrants and their children in the host society to the positive selection from the send-ing societies, it opens the black box of immi-grant selectivity by showing how immigrants from these ethnic groups arrive with specific class- based resources that facilitate their as-similation into American society. Instead of treating immigrants as “blank slates” on arrival in the United States (Deaux 2006), hyper- selectivity as a concept provides both a theo-retical and empirical link between home and host societies, while highlighting how it mat-ters for second- generation achievement. More consequentially, it also reveals the global na-ture and origins of the cognitive construction of U.S. racial categories as well as patterns of ethnoracial identification.

If hyper- selectivity and racial mobility

among Chinese have shifted public perceptions of Asian as a racial category, then hypo- selectivity and racial immobility among Mexi-cans have equated Hispanic and Latino with lingering disadvantages. The racial mobility among Asians has also provided an opportunity to potentially blur, and eventually reposition, the racial boundaries between U.S. Asians and whites (Wimmer 2008). What remains to be seen is how this process unfolds among hypo- selected groups. This contrasting exercise re-veals the need for future studies that focus on how hypo- selectivity affects the achievement of the second generation, how it affects racial group formation and mobility (or immobility), and how it blurs or brightens group boundaries.

Finally, our analyses highlight the salience of a globally comparative context in the study of immigrant assimilation, educational achieve-ment, and racial classifications. By adopting a comparative framework, our analyses show how hyper- selectivity and racial mobility inter-act to change the cognitive construction of U.S. racial categories and the choice of ethnoracial identities among the first and second genera-tion. In doing so, we unveil the centrality of race in the U.S. context. Despite their exceptional achievement, first- and second- generation Ni-gerians remain the exception—rather than the norm—among U.S. blacks. Highly achieving and upwardly mobile Nigerians still find them-selves on the other side of the rigid black- white divide. On the other hand, the racial mobility among Chinese and Asians have begun to blur the white- Asian boundary and the racial dis-tinctions between these groups. Asian Ameri-cans are transforming the U.S. mainstream and remaking race in the process, whereas a similar process has yet to unfold for Cubans, Nigerians, and Armenians and their proximal hosts.

referenCesAlba, Richard. 2016. “The Likely Persistence of a

White Majority.” The American Prospect. Winter. Published online January 11, 2016. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://prospect.org/article/likely -persistence-white-majority-0.

Alba, Richard, and Nancy Foner. 2015. Strangers No More. Immigration and the Challenges of Integra-tion in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

http://prospect.org/article/likely-persistence-white-majority-0

http://prospect.org/article/likely-persistence-white-majority-0



Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-vard University Press.

Arthur, John A. 2000. Invisible Sojourners: African Immigrant Diaspora in the United States. West-port, Conn: Praeger.

Bakalian, Anny P. 1992. Armenian- Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

Bean, Frank D., Susan K. Brown, and James D. Bach-meier. 2015. Parents Without Papers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brubaker, Rogers, Mara Loveman, and Peter Stama-tov. 2004. “Ethnicity as Cognition.” Theory and Society 33(1): 31–64.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Current Population Survey: Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), 2008–2012. Washington: United States Department of Labor.

Calarco, Jessica McCrory. 2014. “Coached for the Classroom: Parents’ Cultural Transmission and Children’s Reproduction of Inequalities.” Ameri-can Sociological Review 79(5): 1015–37.

Cheryan, Sapna, and Benoît Monin. 2005. “Where are you really from? Asian Americans and Iden-tity Denial.” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 89(5): 717–30.

Chua, Amy, and Jed Rubenfeld. 2014. The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America. New York: Penguin.

Craver, Earlene. 2009. “On the Boundary of White: The Cartozian Naturalization Case and the Ar-menians, 1923–1925.” Journal of American Ethnic History 28(2): 30–56.

Deaux, Kay. 2006. To Be an Immigrant. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Der- Martirosian, Claudia. 2008. Iranian Immigrants in Los Angeles: The Role of Networks and Eco-nomic Integration: The New Americans. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Donato, Katharine M., and Douglas S. Massey. 2016. “Twenty- First- Century Globalization and Illegal Migration.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 666(1): 7–26.

Drake, Sean J. 2017. “Academic Segregation and the Institutional Success Frame: Separate and Un-equal Schooling in an Integrated, Affluent Com-munity.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43(14): 2423–39.

Dunlap, David W. 2017. “135 Years Ago, Another

Travel Ban Was in the News.” New York Times, March 17, 2017. Accessed March 19, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/insider /chinese-exclusion-act-travel-ban.html.

Education Policy and Data Center. 2013. National administrative data. Washington: Education Pol-icy and Data Center. Accessed August 29, 2016. https://www.epdc.org/country.

Feliciano, Cynthia. 2006. “Beyond the Family: The Influence of Premigration Group Status on the Educational Expectations of Immigrants’ Chil-dren.” Sociology of Education 79(4): 281–303.

Ferguson, Ronald F. 2003. “Teachers’ Perceptions and Expectations and the Black-White Test Score Gap.” Urban Education 38(4): 460–507.

Fernández- Kelly, Patricia, and Lisa Konzcal. 2005. “‘Murdering the Alphabet’: Identity and Entrepre-neurship Among Second- Generation Cubans, West Indians, and Central Americans.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(6): 1153–81.

Foner, Nancy, and George M. Fredrickson. 2004. Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contempo-rary Perspectives on Immigration, Race and Eth-nicity in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Haller, William, Alejandro Portes, and Scott M. Lynch. 2011. “Dreams Fulfilled, Dreams Shat-tered: Determinants of Segmented Assimilation in the Second Generation.” Social Forces 89(3): 733–62.

Hsin, Amy. 2016. “How Selective Migration Enables Socioeconomic Mobility.” Ethnic and Racial Stud-ies 39(13): 2379–84.

Hsin, Amy, and Yu Xie. 2014. “Explaining Asian Americans’ Academic Advantage over Whites.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23): 8416–21.

Imoagene, Onoso. 2012. “Being British vs Being American: Identification Among Second- Generation Adults of Nigerian Descent in the US and UK.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(12): 2153–73.

———. 2017. Beyond Expectations. Oakland: Univer-sity of California Press.

Jiménez, Tomás R. 2016. “Bringing Culture Back in: The Class Origins and Ethnoracial Destinations of Culture and Achievement.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39(13): 2385–90.

Jiménez, Tomás R., and Adam L. Horowitz. 2013. “When White Is Just Alright: How Immigrants Redefine Achievement and Reconfigure the Eth-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/insider/chinese-exclusion-act-travel-ban.html.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/insider/chinese-exclusion-act-travel-ban.html.

https://www.epdc.org/country.



noracial Hierarchy.” American Sociological Re-view 78(5): 849–71.

Kasinitz, Philip, John H. Mollenkopf, Jennifer Hold-away, and Mary C. Waters. 2008. Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Khachikian, Oshin. 2016. “Ethnic Capital Revisited.” Department of Sociology working paper. Irvine: University of California.

Konadu- Agyemang, Kwadwo, Baffour K. Takyi, and John A. Arthur, eds. 2006. The New African Dias-pora in North America: Trends, Community Build-ing, and Adaptation. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.

Lee, Jennifer. 2015. “From Undesirable to Marriage-able: Hyper- selectivity and the Racial Mobility of Asian Americans.” Annals of the American Acad-emy of Political and Social Science 662(1): 79–93.

Lee, Jennifer, and Frank D. Bean. 2010. The Diversity Paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lee, Jennifer, and Min Zhou. 2015. The Asian Ameri-can Achievement Paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

———. 2016. “Unraveling the Link Between Culture and Achievement.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39(13): 2404–11.

———. 2017. “Why Class Matters Less for Asian American Achievement.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43(14): 2316–30.

Lewis- McCoy, R. L’Heureux. 2014. Inequality in the Promised Land: Race, Resources, and Suburban Schooling. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Logan, John R., and Glenn Deane. 2003. “Black Di-versity in Metropolitan America.” Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Re-search, University at Albany.

Mittelberg, David, and Mary C. Waters. 1992. “The Process of Ethnogenesis Among Haitian and Is-raeli Immigrants in the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 15(3): 412–35.

Mora, G. Cristina. 2014. “Cross- Field Effects and Ethnic Classification: The Institutionalization of Hispanic Panethnicity, 1965 to 1990.” American Sociological Review 79(2): 183–210.

Oboler, Suzanne. 1995. Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives: Identity and the Politics of (Re) Presentation in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ogbaa, Kalu. 2003. The Nigerian Americans: The

New Americans. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Okihiro, Gary. 1994. Margins and Mainstreams: Asians in American History and Culture. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Owens, Jayanti, and Scott M. Lynch. 2012. “Black and Hispanic Immigrants’ Resilience Against Negative- Ability Racial Stereotypes at Selective Colleges and Universities in the United States.” Sociology of Education 85(4): 303–25.

Owens, Jayanti, and Douglas S. Massey. 2011. “Ste-reotype Threat and College Academic Perfor-mance: A Latent Variables Approach.” Social Sci-ence Research 40(1): 150–66.

Patacchini, Eleonora, and Yves Zenou. 2016. “Racial Identity and Education in Social Networks.” So-cial Networks 44(January): 85–94.

Pedraza- Bailey, Silvia. 1985. “Cuba’s Exiles: Portrait of a Refugee Migration.” The International Migra-tion Review 19(1): 4–34.

Pérez, Lisandro. 1986. “Cubans in the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Po-litical and Social Science 487(1): 126–37.

Phinney, Jean S., Kathleen Baumann, and Shanika Blanton. 2001. “Life Goals and Attributions for Expected Outcomes among Adolescents from Five Ethnic Groups.” Hispanic Journal of Behav-ioral Sciences 23(4): 363–77.

Phinney, Jean S., Anthony Ong, and Tanya Madden. 2000. “Cultural Values and Intergenerational Value Discrepancies in Immigrant and Non- Immigrant Families.” Child Development 71(2): 528–39.

Portes, Alejandro. 1969. “Dilemmas of a Golden Ex-ile: Integration of Cuban Refugee Families in Mil-waukee.” American Sociological Review 34(4): 505–18.

Portes, Alejandro, Rosa Aparicio Gomez, and Wil-liam Haller. 2016. Spanish Legacies: The Coming of Age of the Second Generation. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro, and Robert L. Bach. 1985. Latin Journey, Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro, and József Böröcz. 1989. “Con-temporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation.” International Migration Review 23(3): 606–30.

Portes, Alejandro, Juan M. Clark, and Robert L. Bach. 1977. “The New Wave: A Statistical Profile of Re-



cent Cuban Exiles to the U.S.” Cuban Studies 7(1): 1–32.

Portes, Alejandro, and Patricia Fernández- Kelly. 2008. “No Margin for Error: Educational and Oc-cupational Achievement Among Disadvantaged Children of Immigrants.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 620(1): 12–36.

Portes, Alejandro, and Dag MacLeod. 1996. “Educa-tional Progress of Children of Immigrants: The Roles of Class, Ethnicity, and School Context.” Sociology of Education 69(4): 255–75.

Portes, Alejandro, and Aaron Puhrmann. 2015. “A Bi-furcated Enclave: The Economic Evolution of the Cuban and Cuban American Population of Met-ropolitan Miami.” Cuban Studies 43: 40–63.

Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530(1): 74–96.

Rumbaut, Rubén G., and Alejandro Portes. 2001. Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sabagh, Georges, Mehdi Bozorgmehr, and Claudia Der- Martirosian. 1990. “Subethnicity: Armenians in Los Angeles.” Institute for Social Science Re-search working paper. Los Angeles: University of California. Accessed January 28, 2018. http:// escholarship.org/uc/item/7jp6m12s .

Saperstein, Aliya. 2015. “Developing a Racial Mobil-ity Perspective for the Social Sciences.” Work in Progress (blog), March 3, 2015. Accessed January 28, 2018. https://www.russellsage.org/news /developing-racial-mobility-perspective-social -sciences.

Takaki, Ronald. 1979. Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th- Century America. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Telles, Edward E., and Vilma Ortiz. 2008. Genera-tions of Exclusion: Mexican- Americans, Assimila-tion, and Race. New York: Russell Sage Founda-tion.

Torres, María de los Angeles. 1999. In the Land of Mirrors: Cuban Exile Politics in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Tran, Van C. 2015. “More Than Just Black: Cultural Perils and Opportunities in Inner- City Neighbor-hoods.” In Bringing Culture Back In: New Ap-proaches to the Problems of Black Youth, edited by Orlando Patterson. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

———. 2016. “Ethnic Culture and Social Mobility Among Second- Generation Asian Americans.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39(13): 2398–403.

Tran, Van C., and Nicol M. Valdez. 2017. “Second- Generation Decline or Advantage? Latino As-similation in the Aftermath of the Great Reces-sion.” International Migration Review 55(1): 155–90.

Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Contemporary Asian Ethnic Experi-ence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2012. “UIS Statis-tics Database, 2010–2012.” Accessed August 29, 2016. http://data.uis.unesco.org/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. “American FactFinder—Results.” Accessed January 28, 2018. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf /pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_1YR _S0201&prodType=table.

Valenzuela, Angela. 1999. Subtractive Schooling: U.S.- Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. New York: State University of New York Press.

Waldinger, Roger D. 2015. The Cross- Border Connec-tion: Immigrants, Emigrants, and Their Home-lands. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Waldinger, Roger D., and Mehdi Bozorgmehr, eds. 1996. Ethnic Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Waters, Mary C., Reed Ueda, and Helen B. Marrow, eds. 2007. The New Americans: A Guide to Immi-gration since 1965. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Wimmer, Andreas. 2008. “The Making and Unmak-ing of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 113(4): 970–1022.

Wong, Janelle, S. Karthick Ramakrishnan, Taeku Lee, and Jane Junn. 2011. Asian American Political Participation: Emerging Constituents and Their Political Identities. New York: Russell Sage Foun-dation.

Zhou, Min, and Susan Kim. 2006. “Community Forces, Social Capital, and Educational Achievement: The Case of Supplementary Ed-ucation in the Chinese and Korean Immigrant Communities.” Harvard Educational Review 76(1): 1–29.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7jp6m12s

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7jp6m12s

https://www.russellsage.org/news/developing-racial-mobility-perspective-social-sciences.



http://data.uis.unesco.org/.

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_1YR_S0201&prodType=table.




hyper-selectivity, racial mobility, and the remaking of race

Documents